[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 105 (Thursday, July 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7034-H7035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2005, PART VI

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on 
Science, the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on 
Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill ( H.R. 
3512) to provide an extension of administrative expenses for highway, 
highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs 
funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law 
reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, is this the legislation extending time for 
the transportation bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, it is.
  Mr. SHAYS. Then, Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I yield 
to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple extension 
which is necessary once we pass H.R. 3 to give time for an enrollment 
and delivering the package to the Senate, which we hope to do tonight, 
and then after being enrolled on to the President, and that will take 
some time.
  If we do not do this, the Federal Government and the transportation 
system will be shut down. This has been requested by the administration 
and by the other body.
  Mr. SHAYS. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
would love to have a dialogue with the gentleman bringing out the bill, 
but first will express my reservation of objection.
  In the full bill that we will be considering, there is a section 1942 
entitled Opening of Airfield at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. It 
reads: ``Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall, (1) open the Air Field At 
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; and (2) enable flying operations for 
all fixed-wing aircraft at that base.''
  My objection is that I understand this resolution extension will only 
go until August 14. That means that the President is forced to sign the 
bill, the ultimate bill that we pass, even if he has objections to the 
bill. I have deep concern that we are basically forcing the President 
to agree to an act that will reopen a base closed under BRAC without 
any options.
  And if the President does the right thing, which would be to veto 
this bill so that stuff like this is not made into law, then our 
government transportation shuts down. My reservation is that the 
extension is not long enough.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that 
this was asked for by the administration. This was the length that they 
wanted to have it, 14 days. To in fact have this extension any longer 
has not been requested by the administration, and I believe this can do 
the job. The President has to make the decision. If he wishes to veto 
the bill, he can do so.
  But this has been a request by the administration. This is the 
eleventh extension we have had on this legislation, and I will be right 
up front with everybody that I think it is the last one we should be 
doing. This is very important to the States themselves.
  The President will make that decision on the merits of the 
gentleman's argument, and I understand those merits. I will not 
disagree with what he said. I am just suggesting respectfully that this 
is action for the bill itself and for the rule. But for the extension, 
this has been a request made by the administration, by the other body, 
and of course the leadership of this House.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the 
gentleman, and will yield to him for a response to this question: Does 
the President know that in this transportation bill there is 
legislation language that will undo a BRAC closing? Is he aware that 
this language is in this?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am 
confident that the President of the Senate has communicated with the 
White House. All through this process they have been very much involved 
in the process of passage of this legislation. I have not asked his 
opinion on that part of the legislation. I know that this is a request, 
and I am trying to fulfill that request.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, this item which the gentleman has raised 
was an item requested by Senate conferees on which Senate conferees 
voted and asked us to consider. We were not aware at the time that it 
was a BRAC item. We learned about it subsequently.
  Our review of the matter reveals that one runway at the Air Force 
base was closed; the other runway is active and still operating as a 
military facility. This language would simply keep the other one runway 
operating for a variety of purposes, multiuse purposes, at the airport.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to 
confide with my colleague that I am told that this is language that 
will basically reopen a base that was closed under BRAC, and that while 
the gentleman is under the interpretation he is under, there are many 
of us who believe it is quite different. While I greatly respect the 
gentleman, it seems to me this House of Representatives has to someday 
stand up to the Senate when they do this kind of stuff, sir.
  What we are seeing here is absolutely outrageous, and what would have 
been a preferred extension, in my judgment, with all due respect to my 
colleagues, would be to have allowed the President such time that he 
could have had an extension until he signed this legislation. And if he 
did not sign this legislation, we could have come back and corrected 
this.
  I am hopeful that before the night is out that we are going to delete 
section 1942. I do not know how it is going to happen, but, Lord knows, 
if it does not, we have basically done something that I think is 
shameful to the process and reflects badly not just on the Senate, but 
on the House that we would allow them.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
concur in the gentleman's feelings about this matter. It should not 
have been an item in a conference report on a transportation bill of 
this magnitude, but as we all know, these things make their way in. We 
did not have full information.
  Our information subsequently is that the base was not closed, but 
that one runway was shut down, and this language was to open that one 
runway. There will be a further opportunity in a technical correction 
to address the concerns of the gentleman from Connecticut, and I am 
confident that the

[[Page H7035]]

chairman will further consult on the matter.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the concept of a BRAC, the Base Realignment 
Commission, is to remove the political process from the closure of 
bases in order to get us to the type of military that we need to meet 
today's demands to fight terrorism around the globe. And if we insert 
our will from another body, the Senate, into this bill, it will 
jeopardize that process. I do not think any of us want that here on the 
floor.
  If we cannot relieve that dissension among our ranks on this bill, it 
will not pass on the floor tonight. We all would like to see this 
happen, because as the gentleman from Alaska has expressed, we need 
this bill. We need this to occur within each of our States. We need to 
build highways. We need the infrastructure for our economy. But if this 
provision is inserted, it will go beyond the concept of BRAC and take 
the political process out of getting the proper size and scope of our 
military.
  So I hope that whatever provision we have within this rule will 
alleviate these provisions, because if they are not, the bill will not 
pass. I think there will be enough dissent on both sides of this great 
institution, on the floor, in the House, the Republicans and the 
Democrats, to keep this from passing.
  So I hope we can correct this measure within the rule, because if 
not, I think we will have a failed bill. And that will not be good for 
this country or for the efforts that we have here tonight.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I would like to try to put this in perspective. I agree 
with the gentleman it is egregious this is in the bill. We had a very 
difficult negotiation with the Senate. This was snuck in. It is not 
like we are reopening a base, repositioning forces and/or equipment. We 
are talking about a runway.
  The question is, will they, in the next month, until we can have a 
technical correction bill, have to run out and pull the weeds and 
repaint the lines on the runway? This is not exactly a major part of 
the BRAC process.
  To forestall the passage of a bill which is almost 2 years overdue, 
which invests $286.4 billion in America's infrastructure, because there 
might be some weeds pulled on a runway in the interim, I agree it is 
offensive, but we can fix it and challenge the Senate at a later date. 
But to hold up the entire bill and forestall the investment, there are 
States who are waiting today and who will spend money under this bill 
and commit money under this bill this construction season, putting 
thousands of people to work and making needed investments in America.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making a 
case well beyond this issue.
  I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and would be happy to 
yield to him to respond. It was my understanding that this provision of 
60 days had been shorter, and somehow people felt that by extending to 
60 days, they had solved the objection to this bill. Is it true that 
when this bill came out of conference, it was less than 60 days?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I am not sure what provision the gentleman is talking 
about.
  Mr. SHAYS. Does the gentleman know the provision I am talking about? 
It says, ``Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall open the air field at 
Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.'' Open it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Right. It would reopen a runway.
  Mr. SHAYS. ``And enable flying operations for all fixed-wing aircraft 
at that base.'' It is opening a base. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to 
make a closing comment, and if I am not allowed to, I would object. And 
my closing comment is this. This is to open a base that was closed. 
This 60 days was added as a sop to the House, in my judgment, with all 
due respect, to somehow allow everybody to save face. We are not in 
session for all 60 days.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent 
request at this time to consult with the Senate and see if we cannot 
resolve this problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unanimous consent is not required. The 
request is withdrawn.

                          ____________________